[Taxacom] Fwd: evolution education

Fri Feb 4 22:13:36 CST 2011

For the record, I first heard of evolution in 2nd. year at University (but that was 1940!). I was wide open to ideas, and I wonder what might have happened if a lecturer as persuasive as Wally Waterhouse had taught Creation!

Donald H. Colless
CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences
GPO Box 1700
Canberra 2601
don.colless at csiro.au
tuz li munz est miens envirun
________________________________________
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of John Grehan [jgrehan at sciencebuff.org]
Sent: 05 February 2011 00:18
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Fwd:  evolution education

Here again is that troubling emphasis on 'fact'. To me it does not matter whether evolution is a fact or not, but rather what is important is the scientific methodology. What is the methodology of evolution? In all other sciences the emphasis is on methods of analysis, not facts themselves. It does not matter to a physicist as to whether an 'atom' really exists or not as a fact, but how the model of an atom is an effective (e.g. predictive) methodological tool. At least that is my opinion even if philosophically naive.

I think botany provides many excellent illustrations of evolution - particularly in the combinations of morphologies that lead to the evolution of the angiosperm leaf and flower (or flowers growing out of leaves etc). I sometimes take students through the 2/5 symmetry as an example of something they can all 'see' after the analysis, but none could see by direct observation alone. Is the 2/5 superposition a fact or a theory? It does not seem to matter any more than the method of analysis that leads to that recognition.

I sometimes wonder if evolution would be better served left out of the pre-university education system altogether. I never had anything explicit about evolution until my last year of high school when I specialized in biology. That did not hurt me (although some might sarcastically say that is how I came to be so misguided as to take panbiogeography seriously!).

John Grehan

-----Original Message-----
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of m.egger at comcast.net
Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 4:36 PM
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: [Taxacom] Fwd: evolution education

Well, I'm a secondary Biology teacher in an admittedly supportive region (Seattle), but I teach an extensive evolution unit and rarely have push-back from parents or students (much less school boards.)  I'm up front about what I teach from the start, saying that the vast majority of scientists regard evolution as a fact, debated 150 years ago but now proved beyond reasonable doubt, and that, while there will be many viewpoints in the class, I expect each of them to at least have a clear understanding of the present state of our knowledge of how it works and the evidence scientists in many fields have documented that make evolution the dominant organizing principle in the biological sciences.  I also teach evolution in the center of my curriculum, after general cell chemistry and morphology and immediately after the genetics unit, so that the nature of evolution as essentially a genetic process is apparent. I think a significant problem in teaching evolution at my level relates to the whole red state/blue state schism in our country, so that it's very politicized in places like Oklahoma, but much less so in other regions less prone to fundamentalist zealotry. Also rural vs. urban. Another problem is inadequate teacher training and in some districts inappropriate teacher selection, with the hiring of people as teachers who are clearly unqualified for and even hostile to the teaching of evolution. In those cases, I'd actually be happy if they skipped evolution completely! I have a great advantage in teaching in a supportive region and in being a botanist myself, so that I can include examples of evolutionary concepts and process directly from my own studies.

Mark

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Grehan" <jgrehan at sciencebuff.org>
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Sent: Thursday, February 3, 2011 6:31:04 AM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] evolution education

So what, in your view, are the principles of evolution and what is so
hard about them to teach and what is so difficult about the concept
compared to other science concepts?

John Grehan

-----Original Message-----
From: fautin at ku.edu [mailto:fautin at ku.edu]
Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 9:27 AM
To: John Grehan
Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] evolution education

Of course it is -- we all do.  The puzzlement to us -- at least speaking

for those with whom I have discussed this extensively -- is those who
love
nature yet deny evolution.

Daphne G. Fautin
Professor, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
Curator, Natural History Museum and Biodiversity Research Center
Haworth Hall
University of Kansas
1200 Sunnyside Avenue
Lawrence, Kansas 66045-7534  USA

telephone 1-785-864-3062
fax 1-785-864-5321
evo user name fautin
website www.nhm.ku.edu/~inverts

       direct to database of hexacorals, including sea anemones
               newest version released 22 December 2010
         ***http://hercules.kgs.ku.edu/Hexacoral/Anemone2***

On Thu, 3 Feb 2011, John Grehan wrote:

>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of fautin at ku.edu
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] evolution education
>
> "And a final reason teachers skipped (and still skip) that last
> chapter and do not put everything in an evolutionary context is that
> they
> themselves are uncertain about the principles of evolution (as I like
to
>
> say, it's not rocket science -- it's harder!!;"
>
> It is?
>
>
> "evolution is a difficult
> concept to understand at a level that allows one to teach it
> effectively),"
>
> Really?
>
> "having had a deficient scientific education, which they blithely pass
> on.
> It is certainly possible to love nature and deny evolution."
>
> And it's also possible to love nature and accept evolution.
>
> John Grehan
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>
> The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of
these methods:
>
> (1) http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Or (2) a Google search specified as:
site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here
>

_______________________________________________

Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom

The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of these methods:

(1) http://taxacom.markmail.org

Or (2) a Google search specified as:  site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here
_______________________________________________

Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom

The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of these methods:

(1) http://taxacom.markmail.org

Or (2) a Google search specified as:  site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here

_______________________________________________

Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom

The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of these methods:

(1) http://taxacom.markmail.org

Or (2) a Google search specified as:  site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here